Draft Minutes – November 14, 2025 – San Francisco Ethics Commission

Draft Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
The San Francisco Ethics Commission
Friday, November 14, 2025

Hybrid meeting conducted in-person in City Hall Room 400, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, San Francisco, and also held online as a Remote Meeting via WebEx and aired live on SFGovTV

Note: SFGovTV provides a continuous archive of audio, video, and Caption Notes recordings of Ethics Commission meetings that allows viewers to watch those meetings online in full at the viewer’s convenience. These archives of Ethics Commission meetings may be accessed at SFGovTV at http://sanfrancisco.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=142.

(Note: A complete recording of this meeting can be found on SFGovTv.)

COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: With Vice Chair Yaman Salahi and Commissioners David Tsai, and Kevin Yeh participating, a quorum was present. Chair Flórez Feng, and Commissioner Karen Bell Francois had excused absences.

STAFF PRESENTING: Executive Secretary & Commission Clerk, Charlie Machado-Morrow; Executive Director, Patrick Ford; Senior Policy Research Specialist, Ryan Abusaa; Senior Investigator, Eric Willett.

REPRESENTATIVES OF THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Kathleen Radez, Deputy City Attorney.

MATERIALS DISTRIBUTED:

Item 1. Call to Order and Roll Call

Vice Chair Yaman Salahi called the meeting to order at 10:09am and stated that members of the public may participate in-person or remotely.

Commission Clerk Charlie Machado-Morrow summarized the procedures for participation by members of the public for the meeting.

Item 2. Public Comment on Matters not Appearing on the Agenda.

No public comment was received on the item.

CONSENT CALENDAR: Items 3, 4, and 5.

Under its Consent Calendar, provided the opportunity for public comment on all Consent Calendar items and voted 3-0 to adopt a motion by Vice Chair Salahi and seconded by Commissioner Yeh to approve the following consent calendar item that required action by the Commission:

Item 3, Draft Minutes for October 10, 2025, Regular Meeting – Acting Chair Salahi pulled the Draft Meeting Minutes for correction of Commissioner attendance, approved with modification.

The following Consent Calendar items were informational and required no action by the Commission, but the opportunity for public comment was provided.

Item 4, Executive Director’s Report – Acting Chair Salahi pulled the Executive Director’s report by the request of Commissioner Yeh for an update on the Streamlining Task Force.

Executive Director Pat Ford reported on the Streamlining Task Force’s review of governance commissions. The Streamlining Task Force considered recommendations to make Ethics Commissioners removable at will and to remove the Commission’s authority to place ballot measures before voters. Ford opposed both, stressing these powers protect the Commission’s independence and citing the creation of the city’s public financing program as proof of their importance.

He proposed instead a notice process allowing other departments and stakeholders to comment before ballot measures advance. Task Force staff will research this and present options at future hearings. Director Ford noted optimism that “for cause” removal will remain, as members seemed opposed to at-will dismissal.

He also clarified that the Commission already conducts extensive outreach before ballot measures, as seen with Proposition D, and is open to adding more consultation steps without limiting its authority.

Item 5, Audits Division Report

Public Comment:

No public comment was received on the item.

REGULAR CALENDAR

Item 6. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Request for Waiver of Post-Employment Restrictions for Chris Block.

Ryan Abussa, Senior Policy Research Specialist at the Ethics Commission, presented Agenda Item Six regarding a waiver request for post-employment restrictions from former city employee Chris Block. Mr. Block, who left the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing earlier this year to join the San Francisco Housing Accelerator Fund, seeks a waiver of the one-year ban on communications with his former department under Section 3.234 of the Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code.

The request arises because Mr. Block’s current work involves a project led by the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development that includes his former department as a stakeholder. The Ethics Commission has authority to grant such waivers if doing so would not create undue influence or unfair advantage. Staff reviewed relevant factors, including the limited overlap between Mr. Block’s former and current roles, the city’s initiation of the project, and the nature of communications, which center on expertise and feedback rather than advocacy.

Mr. Abussa concluded that granting a limited waiver poses minimal risk of undue influence and recommended approval for communications limited to the six-month duration of the project.

Chris Block spoke and thanked the Ethics Commission, Director, and staff, particularly Michael Canninig and Ryan Abussa, for their responsiveness and clarity throughout the waiver request process. He expressed appreciation for the professionalism and effort made to understand the context of his request, noting that the process was transparent and collaborative. Mr. Block also acknowledged the staff’s recommendation and reiterated his gratitude before making himself available to answer any questions from the Commission.

Vice Chair Salahi asked Mr. Block if he had any concerns with the scope of the waiver being recommended, to which he responded no and that he originally asked for a limited waiver.

Public Comment:

No public co0mment was received on this item.

Motion 251114-02 (Yeh / Tsai): Moved, seconded, and approved unanimously (3-0) to approve the Request for Waiver of Post-Employment Restrictions for Chris Block.

Item 7. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Proposed Stipulation, Decision and Order In the Matter of Mark Kelleher (SFEC Complaint No. 25-883)

Eric Willett, Senior Investigator with the Ethics Commission, presented a settlement agreement between the Commission and respondent Mark Kelleher. Willett noted that the matter was previously brought before the Commission in April but not approved.

The revised stipulation clarifies that Kelleher’s actions while disqualified had no financial impact on any party, as the related contracts had already been executed and were presented only for informational purposes. The updated agreement includes a reduced penalty consistent with similar past cases and reflects the minimal public harm caused. Willett concluded by offering to answer any questions from the Commission.

Public Comment:

Mark Kelleher spoke in person and expressed gratitude to the Ethics Commission and staff for their fairness and thoughtful consideration throughout the resolution process. He reflected on his 15 years of volunteer service to the city and the LGBTQ+ community, emphasizing his commitment to ethical conduct and good governance. Kelleher explained that the violation stemmed from inadvertently voting on agenda items while disqualified, due in part to missed email notices about required ethics and sunshine trainings.

He stated that he was unaware of his disqualification at the time and noted that his votes had no financial or policy impact, as the matters involved pre-approved contracts. Kelleher acknowledged his oversight, confirmed that he has since completed all required trainings, and assured the Commission that such an issue would not recur. He apologized and urged acceptance of the stipulation agreement to resolve the matter.

Motion 251114-03 (Tsai / Yeh): Moved, seconded, and approved unanimously (3-0) to approve the proposed stipulation In the Matter of Mark Kellerer.

Item 8. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Behested Payment Waiver Legislation.

Ryan Abussa of the Ethics Commission introduced an agenda item concerning discussion and possible action on proposed amendments to the city’s behested payment legislation, continued from the October meeting to allow fuller discussion. He recapped that since 2022, city officers and designated employees have been prohibited from soliciting behested payments from interested parties, though departments may request waivers from the Board of Supervisors under certain transparency and public-interest requirements.

The new ordinance, introduced by Board President Rafael Mandelman, would extend the Board’s authority to grant such waivers to its own officers and employees. Mr. Abussa stated that staff do not believe this change would undermine existing safeguards, as all waivers would still require majority Board approval in public session, with the position of covered officers or employees explicitly identified. The proposal also includes a technical amendment to update the chapter title to “Behested Payments.” Mr. Abussa noted that the staff memo was updated to include analysis of recent waivers and discussions from October. He and Director Ford were available for questions, and President Mandelman was present to provide additional remarks.

The Board of Supervisor’s President, Rafael Mandelman, addressed the Ethics Commission to discuss the proposed amendment to the city’s behested payment rules. He stated that the legislation is straightforward, seeking to extend to members of the Board of Supervisors the same ability to request solicitation waivers that other elected and appointed officials already have. Mandelman explained that since the 2022 prohibition on soliciting donations from interested parties, 20 waivers have been granted to various city departments and officials to meet urgent public needs, such as purchasing fire trucks, expanding shelters, supporting immigrant services, and responding to the fentanyl crisis.

He noted that excluding supervisors from eligibility was unreasonable, given their close engagement with communities and nonprofits addressing critical needs, especially amid federal funding threats and local budget pressures. Mandelman emphasized the amendment would maintain all existing safeguards, requiring public review, identification of donors, and justification of public benefit, along with standard reporting obligations. Mandelman concluded by thanking Ethics Commission staff, Deputy City Attorneys, and his legislative aide for their work on the legislation and offered to answer questions.

Commissioner Tsai asked President Mandelman to provide some examples of situations that supervisors would seek a wavier?

President Mandelman responded stating that while he could not speak for other supervisors, each district faces distinct needs. As a gay supervisor, he expressed concern about recent and anticipated funding cuts to LGBTQ+ nonprofits, including organizations supporting trans film festivals, youth services, information and referral programs for newly arrived young people, and job training initiatives. He noted that, in his role, he could foresee requesting a waiver to solicit contributions to help address urgent community needs that the city can no longer fund.

Commissioner Tsai responded stating that the Commission has received many public comments expressing concern that supervisors would be approving their own waivers. He asked President Mandelman if he believed a third party, such as the Ethics Commission, should oversee the approval process instead?

President Rafael Mandelman responded that while the idea of third-party oversight could be considered, he believes sufficient safeguards already exist. He explained that waiver approvals would be made by the full Board of Supervisors, not by the individual requesting the waiver, which provides an adequate internal check. Mandelman also noted that past issues prompting this legislation did not primarily involve the Board, making its exclusion from the waiver process unnecessary.

Commissioner Yeh asked Mr. Abussa if our peer jurisdictions have similar behested payment prohibitions or regulations like the ones being presented. Mr. Abussa stated there was no evidence found in his research and that he believes San Fran cisco has gone above and beyond other jurisdictions and the state level regarding the behested payment reporting.

Commissioner Yeh clarified his questions asking if there are other jurisdictions that allow behested payment within the state of California. Executive Director Pat Ford responded and explained that few municipalities have rules identical to San Francisco’s interested party restrictions, though similar prohibitions exist elsewhere. Many other jurisdictions, particularly on the East Coast, address comparable conduct under bribery or gift laws rather than through behested payment rules.

While the terminology and enforcement mechanisms differ, the underlying concern—preventing officials from soliciting donations from parties with city business—is common. Ford noted that cities like New York and Philadelphia have comparable regulations and offered to research whether those jurisdictions include waiver processes similar to San Francisco’s.

Vice Chair Salahi clarified that the main concern with allowing such waivers is the potential for “pay-to-play” behavior. However, since all waivers must go through a public approval process, they would be fully disclosed and subject to public scrutiny. Any issues or concerns arising from specific arrangements could then be addressed through the political process.

Director Ford emphasized that this rationale underpins staff’s recommendation to support the amendment. He explained that the corrupt behested payments uncovered in federal investigations involved clear bribery and coercion, such as inspectors soliciting donations from those they regulated—conduct that would never qualify for or receive a waiver from the Board of Supervisors. In contrast, the waivers currently sought are legitimate, programmatic efforts that support city operations or nonprofit partners working with the city, not personal or fraudulent ventures.

Public Comment:

David Schmidt, a longtime San Francisco resident and supporter of the California Clean Money Campaign, urged the Commission to reject Item Eight, arguing that allowing the Board of Supervisors to grant themselves waivers to solicit behested payments from interested parties would undermine Proposition E, which voters overwhelmingly approved in 2020. He cited the City Controller’s Public Integrity Review, which found behested payments pose a high risk of corruption, and warned that the proposal would reopen the door to pay-to-play politics. Schmidt concluded by asking the Commission to vote against the measure.

Carla Kincaid Yoshikawa, a Central Sunset resident and longtime volunteer with the California Clean Money Campaign, spoke in opposition to the proposal. She praised the Ethics Commission and Board of Supervisors for their prior efforts to limit behested payments through Proposition E but argued that allowing supervisors to grant themselves waivers would weaken those reforms. Comparing the change to “the fox guarding the henhouse,” she warned that such a move would reopen loopholes for corruption and undermine public trust. Yoshikawa emphasized that San Francisco’s strong ethics rules set it apart and should be preserved to keep hidden money and undue influence out of city government.

Pamela, a San Francisco resident since 1982 and volunteer with the California Clean Money Campaign, urged the Commission to reject the proposal allowing the Board of Supervisors to waive the ban on soliciting behested payments from interested parties. She stated that residents deserve confidence that officials make decisions in the public’s interest rather than under the influence of corporations or special interests, warning that permitting such fundraising compromises public trust and officials’ duty to serve the community.

Caroline, a San Francisco resident and member of the California Clean Money Campaign, expressed opposition to the proposal, stating it perpetuates pay-to-play politics. She questioned why government funds should be raised from entities seeking contracts or permits from the city and urged the Commission to vote against Item Eight.

Lee Heppner, a former city employee involved in drafting the original behested payments ordinance and Proposition E, spoke in strong opposition to the proposed amendment. He warned that allowing elected officials to solicit funds from entities seeking city contracts would reopen the door to corruption and erode public trust, undermining reforms established after major scandals that led to multiple department head resignations and federal intervention.

Heppner criticized the Board of Supervisors’ claim that they can self-police such waivers, noting that recent waivers have passed unanimously without discussion or clear disclosure of interested parties. He argued that the issue lies in education and compliance, not in overly restrictive rules, and condemned the notion that funding essential city programs should depend on private donors, calling it inappropriate and unethical. He urged the Commission to reject the ordinance and uphold the integrity protections approved by voters through Proposition E.

Esther Marks spoke as a private citizen urging the Commission to reject the proposed amendment on behested payments. She noted that only three commissioners were present and encouraged them to vote against the measure. Marks stated that rather than weakening the ordinance, which currently restricts the Board of Supervisors from soliciting such payments, the Commission should work to strengthen existing ethics protections.

Mary Scheib, a member of Indivisible San Francisco’s Local and State Action group, called in and spoke in opposition to Item Eight on behalf of her organization and in coalition with the California Clean Money Campaign and California Common Cause. She emphasized that the ordinance allowing the Board of Supervisors to grant themselves waivers to solicit payments from interested parties would undermine Proposition E, which 70% of voters approved in 2020 to prevent corruption and pay-to-play politics.

Scheib stated that such a change would conflict with the will of voters and weaken public trust. She urged the Ethics Commission to uphold transparency and accountability in government, maintain existing restrictions, and reject the proposed ordinance.

Trent Lange, Executive Director of the California Clean Money Campaign, called in and spoke in opposition to the proposed ordinance, emphasizing his organization’s two decades of work to reduce the influence of money in politics. He acknowledged that elected officials often wish to support good causes but warned that allowing them to solicit donations from city contractors or interested parties creates clear pay-to-play concerns and undermines public trust.

Lange commended the Ethics Commission for establishing the 2021 prohibition on such solicitations and reminded commissioners that voters reinforced those protections through Proposition E, which passed with nearly 70% approval. He argued that permitting supervisors to grant themselves waivers would reverse those reforms and violate voter intent. Lange noted that over 160 San Franciscans had submitted public comments opposing the proposal and urged the Commission to reject it. He added that his organization supports compliance-based reforms, such as a central database to prevent inadvertent violations, rather than weakening the existing law.

Diaz Amri, Money and Politics Program Manager at California Common Cause, urged the Commission to oppose Ordinance 250947, which would allow the Board of Supervisors to grant themselves waivers from the city’s ban on soliciting payments from interested parties. Ami stated that the proposal would weaken key anti-corruption protections established by Proposition E, which voters overwhelmingly approved in 2022 following the City Controller’s findings that behested payments pose pay-to-play risks.

She argued that allowing supervisors to approve their own exemptions creates a clear conflict of interest and undermines public trust. Instead, Ami recommended practical compliance measures—such as donor databases or cure periods—to prevent inadvertent violations without dismantling the law. She concluded by calling on the Ethics Commission to uphold the integrity and intent of Proposition E.

Stephen Hill, a longtime contributor to San Francisco’s campaign finance laws, spoke in opposition to the proposed ordinance. While expressing respect for President Mandelman, he argued that allowing the Board of Supervisors to grant themselves behested payment waivers would create a “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” dynamic, fostering internal pay-to-play behavior.

Hill stated that such arrangements would undermine integrity and public trust, suggesting that instead of expanding exemptions, the city should close existing loopholes for other offices, including the Mayor’s. He emphasized that supervisors can already solicit donations from entities without city contracts, making this change unnecessary. Citing corruption cases in Los Angeles as a warning, Hill urged the Commission to reject the proposal to prevent similar issues in San Francisco.

A caller identifying themselves as “San Francisco” called in and spoke in strong opposition to the proposed ordinance, characterizing it as an example of government corruption and a misuse of taxpayer money. The speaker expressed deep frustration and distrust toward city officials, citing recent corruption scandals and ethical lapses as reasons the community has lost faith in local leadership. They urged the Commission to reject the measure, investigate potential misconduct, and work toward rebuilding public trust through ethical governance and accountability.

Motion 251114-03 (Tsai / Yeh): Moved, seconded, and approved unanimously (3-0) to continue the item to the following Commission meeting.

Item 9. Items for Future Meetings (Discussion)

No comments were made by the Commission or Staff regarding future agenda items.

Public Comment:

A member of the public expressed strong frustration with the Commission, criticizing its lack of proactivity and accountability in addressing issues involving taxpayer funds and alleged misconduct. The speaker referenced concerns about past spending, including a trip to Japan, and accused the Commission of being reactive rather than responsive to community needs.

Item 10. Additional Opportunity for General Public Comment

Carla Kincaid Yoshikawa spoke again and expressed concern about the Commission’s transparency and decision-making process, emphasizing that short-notice meeting notifications and limited public access create poor optics and reduce community participation.

Yoshikawa stated that the inability to contact commissioners directly undermines public trust and accountability. She cautioned against supporting measures that could open the door to corruption, stressing that laws must protect against those who might exploit loopholes. She urged the Commission to uphold its mission of integrity, transparency, and ethical governance in both its operations and policy decisions.

Stephen Hill called in again and reiterated his opposition to Item Eight, emphasizing that the proposal itself poses a serious ethical problem. He warned that allowing the Board of Supervisors to approve behested payment waivers by majority vote would create a “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” dynamic, encouraging political trade-offs and undermining public trust.

Hill cautioned that this system could deepen factional divisions within the Board and enable backroom deals contrary to the intent of Proposition E, which voters passed to prevent such conduct. He urged the Ethics Commission to uphold its responsibility to protect against corruption and avoid weakening established safeguards.

Trent Lange, Director of California Clean Money Campaign called in again and thanked the Commission for postponing discussion of Item Eight until the full commission could participate. They reiterated concerns specifically about behested payments from interested parties such as city contractors, noting that this was the focus of Proposition E. They warned that allowing supervisors to solicit donations from those whose contracts they influence creates a perception of coercion and pay-to-play politics, even if unintentional. The speaker also urged the Commission to make commissioners’ city email addresses publicly available to improve transparency and allow for direct communication with the public.

Item 11. Adjournment

The Commission adjourned at 11:33am.

Draft Minutes of the Regular Meeting ofThe San Francisco Ethics CommissionFriday, November 14, 2025

Draft Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
The San Francisco Ethics Commission
Friday, November 14, 2025